On March 21, New Jersey state court judge Anthony Parrillo ruled that the
state must let voters register as members of minor parties. Ever since 1918, New
Jersey voters have been restricted to registering only as Republicans, Democrats
or independents. Council of Alternative Political Parties v State,
Mer-C-006-99., superior court.

The plaintiff political parties in the case are Reform, Libertarian, Green,
Natural Law and Constitution. The parties persuaded the judge that in states
which permit voters to register into those parties, the parties benefit from
having this list of supporters. The judge limited his relief to those particular
parties, pending any legislative action. The state Democratic and Republican
Parties, which had intervened in the suit to uphold the old restrictive law,
will appeal. However, the Attorney General of New Jersey hasn't said yet whether
he will appeal. If the state doesn't appeal, the appeal of the Democratic and
Republican Parties will be weakened.

This is the third lawsuit won by minor parties on this issue. The previous
victories were in Colorado in 1984 and Oklahoma in 1998. There have also been
two losses, in Iowa in 1990 and North Carolina in 1995. Judge Parrillo
distinguished the Iowa case from the New Jersey case by pointing out that a
group can become a qualified party in Iowa if it polls 2% for Governor or
president, whereas in New Jersey, it must poll 10% of the vote for legislature.
Also in Iowa, only three counties had computerized voter registration records at
the time, whereas all New Jersey counties have computerized registration
records.

Parillo distinguished the North Carolina case from the New Jersey case by
mentioning that at least in North Carolina, there is a petition procedure for a
group to transform itself into a qualified party, and when it does that, it
gains registration privileges.

By contrast, in New Jersey, there is no procedure for a group to turn itself
into a qualified party (short of hoping that its candidates for legislature poll
10%). Since 1918, only the Democrats and Republicans have been qualified in New
Jersey. No other state has gone so many years with no qualified parties other
than the two major parties.

The only remaining states which ask for party affiliation on voter
registration forms, but which force voters to choose only among the qualified
parties or "independent" are New York, Iowa and Kansas. However, there are some
other states which permit anyone to register into unqualified parties, yet don't
keep separate computer tallies for those unqualified parties.

The basis for the decision was equal protection. Since the state gathers a
list of registered voters for the major parties, it cannot fail to perform the
same service for smaller bona fide parties. The 41-page ruling took care
to describe the plaintiff political parties in some detail, to show that they
enjoy a fair modicum of public support and are well-organized.

On March 6, the Virginia legislature passed HB 4, which provides that
candidates of qualified parties may have a party label on the general election
ballot next to their names. Republican legislators voted for the bill, whereas
Democrats opposed it.

Virginia already permits party labels for presidential candidates at the
general election (for qualified and non-qualified parties alike). But Virginia
has never before printed party labels on the general election ballot for other
office.

HB 4 requires that candidates of non-qualified parties must have
"independent" printed next to their names. Non-qualified parties are those which
failed to poll 10% at either of the last two elections for any statewide office.

Only the Democratic and Republican Parties meet the 10% standard. Virginia
has no petition procedure for a group to transform itself into a qualified
party. The only access for a group is to circulate candidate petitions, and then
if a statewide candidate of that group gets 10%, the group becomes a party.

Under HB 4, if a new party were formed in an election year, no matter how
popular it might be, it would be impossible for it to place its candidates on
the ballot with a party label. Therefore, HB 4 is unconstitutional, as applied
to new and minor parties, under a federal court decision from Wyoming in 1984,
Blomquist v Thomsen, 591 F Supp 768. In the entire history of U.S.
government-printed ballots, Wyoming (for the period 1973-1984) had been the only
state which ever had a policy of printing party labels on the ballot only for
old, already-established parties, and not for any new parties. Now, if Governor
James Gilmore signs HB 4, Virginia will be alone in that discriminatory
category.

The legislature was aware of the Wyoming precedent, but ignored it, voting
down a separate House bill to provide party labels for all parties.

Governor Gilmore has the power to rewrite SB 4 and make it fair. He must
either sign the bill as it is, improve it, or veto it, by April 4. Anyone may
telephone his office at (804)-786-2211.

SB 4 doesn't take effect until 2001. It is certain that minor party
candidates will sue, if the Governor does not improve the bill. It will be
especially difficult for Virginia to defend its policy, because it already has a
non-discriminatory policy for ballot labels for president.

Minor party candidates in Virginia need party labels even more than major
party candidates do, since Republicans and Democrats are always on the top two
lines of the ballot, whereas other candidates are not.

On March 22, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously that public
universities may collect student activity fees even from students who object to
particular activities. Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin v
Southworth, 98-1189.

Significantly, however, Justice Anthony Kennedy, author of the decision, said
that when government subsidizes the speech of groups with tax money, it must use
a standard of viewpoint neutrality. Five other justices signed Kennedy's
opinion.

The only part of the student activity fee which the Court disallowed was a
procedure by which students voted on whether particular groups should be
subsidized or not. The Court said, "The whole theory of viewpoint neutrality is
that minority views are treated with the same respect as majority views. Access
to a public forum, for instance, does not depend upon majoritarian consent. That
principle is controlling here." The Court remanded the case to a lower court to
handle that part of the case.

Justices David Souter, John Stevens and William Breyer wrote separately to
disagree with Kennedy on the point of neutrality. They cited Buckley v
Valeo, the 1976 case upholding general election public financing only for
parties which polled 5%, to bolster their position that the government may show
favoritism.

The majority decision may protect minor parties from potential future
discriminatory public funding schemes. For example, in 1994, the Senate passed
S.3, which would have given public subsidies as high as thirteen times as much
money to Democratic or Republican candidates as they had raised privately. Yet
no other U.S. Senate candidate could ever receive a public subsidy greater than
half of the private money he or she had raised. This would have been true, even
in cases in which the minor party or independent candidate had raised more
private money and was more popular than either of the major party candidates.

On March 23, state judge Stephen Pheffer ruled that New Mexico must recognize
the new Libertarian registrations that the party obtained, in its drive to
upgrade its status from qualified minor party to qualified major party. Under
the law, a major party is one which polled 5% in the last election and has
registration of one-third of 1% by January 31 of an election year. Lib't
Party v Vigil-Giron, D-101-2000-191, Santa Fe.

The state had refused to recognize the new Libertarian registrations because
some voters said they hadn't understood what they were signing, when a
Libertarian worker approached them and asked them to sign a new voter
registration, making them members of the party. However, Judge Pheffer said that
was no basis for excluding all the new registrants.

But the judge also ruled that the law requires a party to have polled 5% for
Governor, not 5% for any office. Under his ruling, the Green Party would also
lose its major party status. It didn't run a candidate for Governor in 1998, but
polled 28% for State Auditor. The Libertarians didn't run for Governor in 1998
either, but polled 9% for Land Commissioner.

Major parties nominate by primary. Qualified minor parties nominate by
convention, but must submit petitions for each candidate equal to 1% of the last
vote cast, in order to get their convention nominees on the November ballot
(although no petition is required for president). Therefore, major party status
is more valuable than minor party status.

In 1996 the New Mexico Attorney General ruled that the 5% vote test is
satisfied by a candidate for any office, as long as that candidate receives a
number of votes equal to 5% for the office at the top of the ticket. He based
his ruling on the law, which says a major party is "any qualified party,
any of whose candidates received as many as 5% of the total number of
votes cast at the last preceding general election for governor, or president, as
the case may be" (and which has registration of .33%).

Judge Pheffer disagreed with the 1996 Attorney General Opinion. He said "any"
means "any gubernatorial candidate" of that party, which is silly; the law
permits a party to have only one nominee for governor at the general
election.

On March 20, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear DeBauche v
Trani, 99-1009, over whether a state college can hold a debate and invite
only the Democratic and Republican candidates. The Reform candidate (the third
candidate on the ballot) sued, but lost 2-1 in the 4th circuit.

COFOE (the Coalition for Free & Open Elections) had filed an
amicus brief (along with the Appleseed Electoral Reform Law Project, and
the Center for Voting & Democracy) for the candidate. The brief was written
by Prof. Jamin Raskin of American University. COFOE thanks Raskin for his help.
Anyone who wants a copy of the amicus brief may get one by sending $2 to
B.A.N. (if you are a COFOE member, the copy is free).

On March 27, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily affirmed LaRouche v
Fowler, 99-1212. The lower 3-judge U.S. District Court had held last year
that the Voting Rights Act can't be used to override political party rules
concerning presidential convention delegate selection. The U.S. Supreme Court
has now said it agrees. There is no full opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court,
just the phrase "affirmed".

According to a 1996 U.S. Supreme Court opinion, Morse v Republican
Party of Virginia, political parties (as well as state and local
governments), are subject to the Voting Rights Act, and in covered jurisdictions
(all or part of 16 states) can't change their own rules concerning candidate
selection without getting federal government approval. This precedent has now
been curtailed, if the party rules in question concern the presidential
candidate selection process.

1. Alaska: on February 22, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear
ACLU v Alaska, 99-128, a challenge to a state campaign finance law
which severely restricts political parties.

2. Arizona: on February 14, a state court ruled the "Clean Elections
Act" (which provides for public financing of state candidates) violates the
state Constitution, on the technicality of who appoints the 5-member Clean
Elections Commission. The State Supreme Court is reviewing the decision.
Citizen Clean Election Commission v Myers, cv--00-54.

3. Arizona (2): on February 29, U.S. District Court Judge Paul
Rosenblatt ruled that the Democratic Party could use Internet voting for its
March 11 presidential primary, against a claim that such usage discriminates
against people without access to computers. However, he is studying
post-election evidence to determine whether the process was fair and can be used
to send delegates to the Democratic convention. Voting Integrity Project v
Fleisher, cv 00-109-PHX.

4. California: on April 24, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments
in Calif. Democratic Party v Jones, over whether political parties
opposed to the blanket primary can be forced to use them. Amici briefs on
the side of the 4 political parties in the case were filed by the Democratic and
Republican national committees; the Alaska Republican, Libertarian and Alaskan
Independence Parties; the Eagle Forum and the Claremont Institute Center for
Constitutional Jurisprudence; and a group of political scientists. The Brennan
Center for Justice filed a brief arguing that minor parties may not be forced to
submit to a blanket primary but major parties can be forced to use them.

5. District of Columbia: on March 20, a 3-judge U.S. District Court
judge ruled that the U.S. Constitution does not require that voters in the
District of Columbia be represented by voting members in Congress.
Alexander v Daley, 98-2187, combined with Adams v
Clinton, 98-1665.

Judge Louis Oberdorfer partially dissented, finding that D.C. voters should
be allowed to vote for U.S. House as Marylanders (if that were to occur,
Maryland would gain another seat). The majority opinion, by Judges Merrick B.
Garland and Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, is 68 pages; the dissent is 69 pages. See it
at http://www.dcd.uscourts.gov/98-1665/.

6. Illinois: on March 17, U.S. District Court Judge Charles Norgle, a
Reagan appointee, removed a referendum from the municipal ballot in Cicero that
would have extended the residency requirement for candidates for town president
from one year to 18 months. U.S. v Town of Cicero, 00-cv-1530. The
lawsuit was brought by the U.S. Justice Department because it believed the
proposed change was motivated to block two particular Hispanic candidates from
competing in the 2001 election.

7. Illinois (2): On January 13, the federal lawsuit to reinstate the
party lever device on voting machines was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
Crockett v Illinois Bd. of Elections, 98-cv-733 (s.d.).

8. Maine: on March 7, the First Circuit upheld the state's public
financing law for state office. Daggett v Commission on Gov't Ethics &
Election Practices, 99-2243.

9. Missouri: the U.S. Supreme Court still has not said whether it will
hear Cook v Gralike, 99-929, even though it was filed in that court
on November 29, 1999. The issue is whether state initiatives (promoted by the
term limits movement) which place labels on ballots, telling the voters how that
candidate feels about term limits, are valid.

10. New York: on February 29, U.S. District Court Magistrate David
Hurd upheld state law which won't permit an independent voter to switch to
membership in a political party (in order to vote in its primary) unless the
switch was made the year before. Van Wie v Pataki, 00-cv-322
(n.d.). Plaintiffs argued the law is discriminatory, since someone who wasn't
registered to vote is free to register into a party a mere month before its
primary.

11. New York (2): on March 2, U.S. District Court Judge Thomas McAvoy
refused to place the Trump delegates to the Reform Party national convention on
the presidential primary ballot. Essenberg v Berman, 00-cv-317
(n.d.).

Also on March 2, the State Supreme Court sided with the Reform Party's state
committee and against its ousted state chair Jack Essenberg, and approved rules
changes which place power in the hands of local party committees. Anderson
v MacKay, 27609/99, Nassau Co.

12. North Carolina: on March 7, a 3-judge U.S. District Court ruled
that the state's congressional districting plan is still "racially
gerrymandered", and ordered the state not to use the 1997 boundaries for
district 12. Cromartie v Hunt, 4:96-cv-104-BO. However, on March 16
the U.S. Supreme Court suspended that order.

13. Northern Mariana Islands: on January 19, the U.S. Supreme Court
refused to hear Torres v Sablan, a reapportionment case. The
Northern Mariana Islands are a Commonwealth of the U.S. Its legislature does not
follow the "one man, one vote" principles which have been in place in the U.S.
since 1964. The lower court ruled that a Commonwealth is not required to follow
that principle.

14. South Carolina: A Democratic legislator, Senator Todd Rutherford,
sued the Republican Party in federal court for not opening all polling places in
its February presidential primary. He complained that Republicans weren't
opening polls in Black neighborhoods. The case, Rutherford v S.C.
Republican Party, cv 4-00-329-24, was settled when the party promised to
make its best effort to open all locations. However, it still failed to open 300
of the state's 1,752 polling locations.

15. Tennessee: on February 23, a U.S. District Court upheld the
state's early voting law. Millsaps v Thompson, 1:99-cv-261.
Plaintiffs, associated with the Voting Integrity Project, argued that federal
law, setting the date of congressional elections, doesn't permit early voting.

HB 672, the Georgia ballot access reform bill, failed to pass this year's
legislature. It had been tabled in the House on February 1 by a vote of 85-74. A
motion to revive it on February 29 lost, 80-85. Then, on March 6, it was
revived, 90-74.

Unfortunately, Speaker Tom Murphy then sent it to the Rules Committee (even
though he had promised not to), which killed it on a voice vote. It is believed
that leaders of both major parties are responsible.

It is difficult to pass ballot access reform in presidential election years,
and the Georgia group which has been working for the bill is optimistic that the
bill will pass in 2001, since half the membership of the House voted for it this
year. The bill would have taken effect this year if it had passed.

On January 20, the Hawaii Attorney General ruled that the Libertarian Party
is not qualified, as had been thought. Therefore, the party had to re-petition.
Only 602 signatures were needed, and the petition has already been completed and
checked.

In 1999, the Hawaii legislature lowered the vote test for a party to retain
its position, from 10% of half the State Senate seats up in the last election,
to 4% of all the State Senate seats up (there are several alternate means for a
party to retain its status, but the party didn't meet them either). In November
1998 the party had not met the old test, but it did meet the new
test. However, the Attorney General ruled that since the 1999 bill didn't
specify that it had retrospective impact, the results of the 1998 election
cannot be used to qualify any party under the 1999 law.

The Opinion did not mention that a 1997 law, also easing the retention test,
was used to put the Green Party back on the Hawaii ballot for the 1998 election,
even though the 1997 change also didn't specify any retrospective intent.
Orally, however, the Attorney General said the reinstatement of the Green Party
in 1998 had been a "mistake".

SB 2149 and HB 2594, bills in the Tennessee legislature which would let
candidates who use the independent petition procedure choose a partisan label
(which would appear on the petition and on the November ballot), are
progressing, but their scope has been restricted.

Only the Democratic and Republican Parties are recognized in Tennessee. The
name of no other party has appeared on any Tennessee ballot since 1972, when the
American Party last appeared. Minor party candidates in Tennessee always use the
independent petition, but with "independent" as their label.

As introduced, the bills would have allowed a choice of any short label which
didn't mimic the name of a fully qualified party. Then they were amended to
restrict the label only to the name of a party whose presidential candidate had
placed among the top five candidates in the last election in the entire US. That
would have limited the choice (for 2000) to Reform, Green and Libertarian.

The most recent version of the bill is even more restrictive; it would
provide that the only possible label would be the name of any group whose
statewide candidate had polled 5% (as an independent) in either of the last two
elections in Tennessee. That would mean only "Reform" would be permitted.
Activists are trying to get this latest amendment squelched.

On March 13, the Colorado Secretary of State ruled that any party may decide
for itself how long its nominees must have been registered in the party, prior
to their nomination. The law says a party cannot nominate anyone who has not
been a member for a year, but she ruled that this law cannot be enforced, and
each party may have its own by-law on the subject. However, the law banning
anyone from running as the candidate of a party, if he or she has been a member
of another party during the preceding year, will still be enforced.

The Initiative & Referendum Institute will sue the post office this month
over a postal regulation banning petitioning on post office sidewalks. For more
information, contact mdanewaters@iandrinstitute.org or (202)-429-5539.

Arkansas requires 21,181 signatures for a new party, but only 10,000 for
statewide independents (for office other than president). In 1996 a federal
court ruled that the state must let parties on for 10,000, but Arkansas refuses
to honor this decision. The Libertarian Party of Arkansas plans to submit 10,000
valid signatures, and if the state won't recognize it, will sue. The party is
already on for president, but no other office.

On March 11, the National Council on Public Polls (the organization
representing the nation's polling companies) released a statement which
indirectly criticizes the Commission on Presidential Debates for its
presidential debate criteria (15% average, in five polls).

The statement says, "We believe the Commission should establish criteria for
including only comparable public polls in its determination. We also
would like to know what the Commission means by 'use of the combined survey
results'. The National Council on Public Polls believes the Commission should
make public its answers to these questions well in advance of using the results
of public polls as a criterion for debate participation... We do not want
inappropriate poll results to decide who is included in presidential debates."

The statement urges the Commission on Presidential Debates to establish
guidelines for polls: (1) set a fixed period of time for each poll; (2) define
who is being polled; (3) standardize the questions; (4) recalculate percentages
after eliminating persons who indicated no preference; (5) use scientific
methodology.

The parties in the "Other" column are: Alaska Independence in Alaska; Peace
and Freedom in California; Umoja in the District of Columbia; these parties in
Florida: American Reform 154, Socialist Workers 113, Socialist 120, Southern 74,
We the People 42; these parties in Massachusetts: Interdependent Third 2,848,
Rainbow Coalition 424, Socialist 201, Prohibition 13; these parties in New York:
Conservative 171,496, Liberal 92,074, Right to Life 51,392, Working Families
4,611; Socialist in Oregon.

The 23 states not mentioned above do not ask voters which party they are
registered in (except that Rhode Island voter registration forms do ask, but no
one in Rhode Island compiles the totals for any political party).

Data is the most recent from each state. It is from early 2000 for all states
above, except that it is from November 1999 for Connecticut, Kansas, Kentucky,
Maine, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania; and it is from late 1998 in
Nebraska, South Dakota and West Virginia. Data for spring 2000 from these last
three states will be in the June B.A.N.

A dash means that the voters are not permitted to register into a particular
party, since the particular party is not, or was not, qualified in that state,
and the state won't let people register into unqualified parties. A question
mark means that the state has not tabulated the number of registrants in a
particular party.

"Deadline" refers to procedure with the LATEST deadline. * means entry
changed since last issue. # means that candidate procedure allows partisan
label. Other multi-state parties on the ballot: in Florida, the American Reform,
Southern, Soc.Workers and Socialist Parties. The Socialist Party also is on in
Colorado for president, and has 600 signatures in New Jersey, 300 in Ohio, and
1,000 in Iowa.

The three stories below contain unofficial vote totals for everyone on the
ballot in presidential primaries held since the last B.A.N. For
California and Washington, the totals shown include all votes cast for the
candidates, no matter what the party affiliation of the voter (those two states
kept separate tallies for party members as well as for all voters).

Complete California returns are at http://www.ss.ca.gov/(the Secretary of State's
page). There are seven parties; the returns show how members of each party
voted. Except for Greens, most minor party members preferred to vote in the
Republican Party rather than in their own party's primary. Members of the
Reform, Libertarian, American Independent (Constitution) and Natural Law Parties
all cast more votes for McCain than for any other candidate.

On March 7, Santa Fe, New Mexico voters elected Miguel Chavez to the city
council. Chavez is a member of the Green Party. He joins fellow Green city
councillor Cris Moore, who is midway through his second term. Santa Fe has
non-partisan city elections but the partisan affiliation of Chavez was
well-known through the campaign. The voters also re-elected another Green,
Municipal Judge Fran Gallegos.

Gus Hall, national chairman of the Communist Party USA since 1960, left that
post on March 4. He is 89, and now bears the title of "Senior Chairman". He was
the party's presidential candidate 1972 through 1984. The new national chair is
Sam Webb.

Native Hawaiians who are upset that the U.S. Supreme Court recently
invalidated a state law letting only native Hawaiians vote for Office of
Hawaiian Affairs, have organized a new political party, Aloha Ina. It expects to
qualify for this year's ballot next week.

The Constitution Party has moved its national office from Vienna, Virginia,
to 23 N. Lime St., Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602 (the office of national
chairman James Clymer). Phone numbers are (717)-390-1993 and 390-1996; fax is
299-7101.

The Phoenix faction of the Libertarian Party, recently recognized in court as
the "real" Arizona Libertarian Party, changed the state party bylaws in February
to acknowledge that the government-adminstered primary is the proper place to
elect certain party officers. This was to conform to the court decision of
January 27, which upheld the constitutionality of requiring qualified parties to
choose precinct committeemen via the primary (see B.A.N. of March
1). The bylaws change makes it more likely that the Phoenix and Tucson
factions can settle their differences, since the chief reason for the
intra-party dispute was over whether the party should acknowledge state law.

On March 4, the state convention of the Minnesota Reform Party voted to
disaffiliate from the national Reform Party, by a vote of 151-23. It also
changed its name to the Independence Party, 131-10. The national Reform Party is
free to re-establish itself in Minnesota, of course, since the original
Minnesota branch gave up the name "Reform".

On March 27, U.S. District Court Judge Norman Moon ruled that Pat Choate, not
Jack Gargan, is the national chairman of the Reform Party. Reform Party of
USA v Reform Party of America, 6:00-cv-14.